Another Question

[Tigermike 3,039]

There has been a great deal of talk (discussion) about Sen. Obama's meaning, intentions, stand on national security. Specifically Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq. The Middle East in general.

Obama has said concerning Pakistan: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act," Obama said, "we will."

"Iraq has distracted us from Taliban in Afghanistan." (Apr 2007)

He and the dems in general have said for years that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and policy should be to bring those who planned and perpetrated the 9/11 attack to justice. (Yes I did paraphrase)

My question is simple, why would Barack Obama (D., Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) vote against the death penalty for the death penalty against six al-Qaeda operatives who were complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

If Obama is willing to "invade" (my choice of words) Pakistan to look for Ossma Ben Laden why would he vote against the death penalty for these guys?

Or does the dems objection to the death penalty override justice for the murders who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks?

The 9/11 Six: An Opportunity for Senator McCain

By Andrew C. McCarthy

National Review Online

February 12, 2008

On Sunday, the Pentagon announced that military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty against six al-Qaeda operatives who were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Whether those enemy combatants will actually be executed, however, is a question better answered by three decisions made in the United States Senate on September 28, 2006.

That was the day the chamber voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act. In pertinent part, the scorecard reads as follows:

John McCain (R., Ariz.) — Aye

Barack Obama (D., Ill.) — Nay

Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) — Nay

In sum, whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his five fellow savages are subjected to a military-commission trial at all, let alone put to death, will be determined by the outcome of the election in November, not the analysis of JAG lawyers.

It is worth pausing to recognize just how preliminary Sunday’s announcement was. Whether a case is in the civilian or military legal system, the first thing that has to happen before charges get filed is the assigned prosecutor has to figure out what charges his proof can support. So far, this is all that has happened: the government lawyers have concluded their evidence is sufficient to prove that the six combatants conspired to murder, committed nearly 3,000 murders in violation of the laws of war, engaged in terrorism, and materially supported terrorism.

No one should be surprised by that, or by the fact that capital punishment is on the table. In November 2001, President Bush issued his first executive order authorizing military commissions. Section 4(a) of that order declared that any person subject to trial by military commission “may be punished in accordance with the penalties provided under applicable law, including life imprisonment or death.”

Of course, we have not yet had a single commission trial despite the passage of six years’ time. In the interim, not only have the contemplated procedures been a work in progress but the legal basis for holding commissions has dramatically altered — which is why the three plausible contenders for the presidency found themselves casting those votes in 2006. Commissions are now authorized by statute, the aforementioned Military Commissions Act, not executive order. Nevertheless, two core facts have never changed.

First, capital charges have always been a possibility — indeed, likelihood — for terrorism offenses, just as they are in the civilian system. Second, even if a combatant is originally placed in the military system, the commander-in-chief has the power to transfer him to the civilian system — just as President Bush did with Jose Padilla, who was recently convicted of terrorism charges by a civilian court after being detained for three years as an enemy combatant.

While the anti-commission forces, complemented by the anti-death-penalty lobby, are already cranking it up to DEFCON 4, we are in fact a long, long way from a capital-commission trial.

If I may draw a civilian-system analogy, let’s say I was an assistant U.S. attorney assigned to a murder case for which federal law authorizes the death penalty. What the Pentagon told us Sunday is the rough equivalent saying that I, or at most my district U.S. attorney’s office, had determined the case was strong enough to ask for the death penalty. We would still have to seek authorization from the Justice Department. The military prosecutors, similarly, must still get clearance from the Department of Defense.

Let’s assume that happens quickly. Formal charges still have to be filed. Then the six combatants will have counsel assigned — military counsel plus, if they choose and can arrange it, civilian lawyers. (By the way, you can bet the ranch that they will choose to retain civilian counsel, and that a phalanx of defense lawyers will be tripping over themselves to represent our most atrocious enemies.) At that point, all bets are off: Every issue under the sun will be litigated.

Bear in mind, moreover, that the Supreme Court is currently considering the questions whether alien enemy combatants have U.S. constitutional rights and whether lethal injection violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. If the Court rules against the government in those cases, it could undermine both the military-commission enterprise and the availability of capital punishment in American legal proceedings. (The military does not have a settled execution practice at this point, but lethal injection is used in the civilian system because it is the most humane method; if it is invalidated, it is difficult to imagine any method the justices would not find offensive to their conception of Constitution.)

World War II, when, in a mere seven weeks, German saboteurs were captured, tried as enemy combatants under FDR’s order, and executed, is a distant memory. Essentially, we’re now looking at months and months, if not years, of litigation. And that’s without factoring in the layers of appeal that would occur after any trial, first in the military system, then in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and finally in the Supreme Court.

No one can say how long that will take. One thing is sure, however: it will take us beyond January 20, 2009, the day Chief Justice John Roberts will swear in the 44th president of the United States.

So, the 9/11 Six present an opportunity for Sen. McCain.

When the Senate voted in 2006, it was being asked to decide what enforcement paradigm would best protect the American people. Should we return to the 1990s mentality of regarding our enemies as mere criminal defendants, swaddled in the same rights as American citizens accused of crimes? Should we, under the rubric of civilian due process rules, provide our enemies with a banquet of intelligence even as their confederates continue plotting new attacks?

Or should we impose a system in which the enemy is given fewer privileges and life-saving intelligence can be shielded from disclosure?

For all his reservations about interrogation methods, Senator McCain voted to treat the enemy as the enemy.

By contrast, Senators Obama and Clinton voted to treat the enemy like we treat an accused tax cheat.

So will Khalid Sheikh Mohammed face capital punishment after a military-commission trial? It probably depends on whether January 20th signals a return to September 10th.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, an NRO contributing editor, directs the Center for Law & Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

link

[CCTAU 3,334]

I guess one of the three has seen and felt the pain from a brutal enemy. The other 2 have not. This is one place where McCain can absolutely say he has been there.

[RunInRed 16,438]

Once again, a little research and less time on the radical right websites would do you some good.

Obama is not in disagreement with the punishment. He is disagreeing in how they should be tried:

The Pentagon's plans for death-penalty prosecutions of six men accused of plotting the 2001 terrorist attacks were criticized by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who said capital punishment is appropriate for such crimes but that military tribunals are the wrong forum for the case.

Obama said the desire to punish the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, shouldn't blind people to the flaws of the military tribunals that the Bush administration established to try Guantanamo inmates.

"These trials will need to be above reproach," the Illinois senator said in a statement Monday. "These trials are too important to be held in a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges."

Obama said the men should be tried either in a U.S. criminal court or by military court-martial, either of which would "demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law." Both those systems are more protective of defendants' rights than military tribunals, which allow evidence obtained through coercion and hearsay.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...p;type=politics

[CCTAU 3,334]

If these folks are American citizens, then I could go for a different trial. If not, they are no different than spies caught in a foreign country. They should have been exterminated long ago. I am sick that any of my tax money goes to feed these savages. Strap each to a bomb and drop them on Iran. And the fact that anyone in my government would stand up for them tells me we have a serious flaw in our society. The reward for appeasement is death.

[RunInRed 16,438]

It's also interesting to add that just last year, Senator McCain sponsored an amendment that outlawed "military interrogators' use of cruel, inhuman or degrading methods, including the near-drowning technique known as waterboarding."

It looks to me that McCain is trying to play both sides of this fence. Which is becoming pretty standard in this election race as he tries to balance his positions and voting record with the conservative base of the Republican party.

[RunInRed 16,438]

Strap each to a bomb and drop them on Iran.

I'm sure CCTAU is exxagerating but the mentality of some is still pretty unbelievable.

We can not be a civilized nation of laws and justice and a symbol of freedom to the world and also hold these kind of ridiculous thoughts. Thankfully, these type of comments put you on the far right fringe of our society.

[Tigermike 3,039]

Once again, a little research and less time on the radical right websites would do you some good.

Obama is not in disagreement with the punishment. He is disagreeing in how they should be tried:

The Pentagon's plans for death-penalty prosecutions of six men accused of plotting the 2001 terrorist attacks were criticized by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who said capital punishment is appropriate for such crimes but that military tribunals are the wrong forum for the case.

Obama said the desire to punish the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, shouldn't blind people to the flaws of the military tribunals that the Bush administration established to try Guantanamo inmates.

"These trials will need to be above reproach," the Illinois senator said in a statement Monday. "These trials are too important to be held in a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges."

Obama said the men should be tried either in a U.S. criminal court or by military court-martial, either of which would "demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law." Both those systems are more protective of defendants' rights than military tribunals, which allow evidence obtained through coercion and hearsay.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...p;type=politics

Once again if you would do a little research you would know that is hardly a radical right website. Once again if you would do a little thinking instead of honking Obama's bobo you might learn something. But I doubt it. What you are saying is Obama's reason for voting the way he did is because of his natural leftist distrust of the military.

[RunInRed 16,438]

What you are saying is Obama's reason for voting the way he did is because of his natural leftist distrust of the military .

What? Please explain your notion.

[channonc 466]

What you are saying is Obama's reason for voting the way he did is because of his natural leftist distrust of the military President Bush's judgment as Commander-in-Chief .

fixed that for you

[CCTAU 3,334]

Strap each to a bomb and drop them on Iran.

I'm sure CCTAU is exxagerating but the mentality of some is still pretty unbelievable.

We can not be a civilized nation of laws and justice and a symbol of freedom to the world and also hold these kind of ridiculous thoughts. Thankfully, these type of comments put you on the far right fringe of our society.

Somewhat of an exaggeration.

Actually most salt of the earth hard working people feel this way. The more education some get, the more they seem to lose knowledge of what it's like to deal with folks who only understand strength and death. Many people see the situation in more of a survival mode than than a Rodney King mode. Your boy osama Obama is one of the folks who thinks you can talk to these people and if you treat them humane, they will comply. The truth is, the longer you treat them humane, the more time they have to build up strength against you. The ones in Gitmo have lived long enough. They conspired to kill YOU and ME. If you can't see that, then this nation has only a few years of freedom left. I suggest you start learning Arabic now.

[autiger4life 3]

If these folks are American citizens, then I could go for a different trial. If not, they are no different than spies caught in a foreign country. They should have been exterminated long ago. I am sick that any of my tax money goes to feed these savages. Strap each to a bomb and drop them on Iran. And the fact that anyone in my government would stand up for them tells me we have a serious flaw in our society. The reward for appeasement is death.

CCTAU, I am pretty confident that you claim to be a Christian(do not mean to say claim in a sense they you truly aren't, simply that it is not my place to judge whether you are or not). I cannot help but to think that if Jesus were making the decision he would be for 1. Making sure they are guilty(thus a fair trial) and 2. Mercy. Now I understand there were times in the Bible were God did kill and it was justified by God so I cannot say he would be against them getting the death penalty, but I do truly believe that he would be for them getting a full and fair trial. Also your use of exterminated when talking about humans, much as Hitler used when talking about the Jews. While I'm sure you would start screaming that these people are not humans, I once again think that Jesus would disagree. He frequently saved, witnessed to, and gave mercy to those that others did not think were worthy of it, people that they thought were below humans. This is just my opinion but if you go and look at the people that Jesus showed mercy to, and we are to be like him it only seems the least we can do is give them a fair trial.

[CCTAU 3,334]

If these folks are American citizens, then I could go for a different trial. If not, they are no different than spies caught in a foreign country. They should have been exterminated long ago. I am sick that any of my tax money goes to feed these savages. Strap each to a bomb and drop them on Iran. And the fact that anyone in my government would stand up for them tells me we have a serious flaw in our society. The reward for appeasement is death.

CCTAU, I am pretty confident that you claim to be a Christian(do not mean to say claim in a sense they you truly aren't, simply that it is not my place to judge whether you are or not). I cannot help but to think that if Jesus were making the decision he would be for 1. Making sure they are guilty(thus a fair trial) and 2. Mercy. Now I understand there were times in the Bible were God did kill and it was justified by God so I cannot say he would be against them getting the death penalty, but I do truly believe that he would be for them getting a full and fair trial. Also your use of exterminated when talking about humans, much as Hitler used when talking about the Jews. While I'm sure you would start screaming that these people are not humans, I once again think that Jesus would disagree. He frequently saved, witnessed to, and gave mercy to those that others did not think were worthy of it, people that they thought were below humans. This is just my opinion but if you go and look at the people that Jesus showed mercy to, and we are to be like him it only seems the least we can do is give them a fair trial.

I understand your point. And while I may strive to be a better person, I realize I will always have certain frailties. Therefore when confronted with the evil of this world, I am not Jesus and have not the strong will to forgive such as he does. And also, Jesus WOULD NOT be the judge of these men on earth. He has already stated that these men should be bound by whatever law of man's that they broke. And on this earth, non-uniformed enemy combatants are spies and are subject to be shot. Others found to be conspiring to attack and/or destroy this country shall be dealt with accordingly. These animals may be forgiven on heaven, but I am with the group that feels they need to be hurried on along to that celestial judgment. And while it's nice to be all Jesusy and forgivy, wait till it happens to one of your loved ones and see how Jesusy you will be. I just feel that if we stop the madness now and nip it in the bud, then maybe none of us will have to feel any pain form losing a loved one to a terrorist. And unfortunately, forgiving our enemies without taking action to secure our safety is just plain foolishness. And in that same vein, God bless their souls and may they find Jesus BEFORE they meet him face to face.

[Tiger Al 0]

CCTAU, how is giving these people a fair trial equal to "forgiving our enemies without taking action to secure our safety?" How do we convince the citizens of these countries that we are in the process of building that our way is better when, according to you, the way we should go about it would be very similar to the way we've said is wrong?